inkinccorporation@gmail.com Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Abhas Sandilya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.12521/2025)
ABHAS SANDILYA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has been arrayed as an accused in FIR
No.342/2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, ‘the IPC’) as it then was and under Section
185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the co-
accused, namely Accused No.1 (for short, ‘A-1’), by
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
collided into two two-wheelers, leading to the death of
two persons. The appellant was a co-passenger in the car
along with A-1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
4. The charge against the appellant, as seen from the
Date: 2026.02.27
17:24:49 IST
Reason:
records furnished before us, is that he egged A-1 to
drive the car at a high speed. There were only two
2
persons in the vehicle, namely, A-1 and the appellant. It
is the case of the prosecution that the statement,
instigating A-1 to drive the car fast, alleged to have
been made by the appellant was overheard by two persons
on the road who are the chance witnesses. Thus, the
appellant was roped in by the aid of Section 109 IPC.
5. The High Court, while declining to invoke its power
conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was pleased to hold that in view
of the statement so made by the appellant, a case of
abetment prima facie exists against the appellant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
7. Section 304A IPC, as it then was, is a provision for
which mens rea is not required. It is attracted when
death occurs pursuant to a rash or negligent act. The
very case of the prosecution against the appellant is
that he only asked A-1 to drive the car at a high speed.
The statements of the chance witnesses produced before us
would show that all the witnesses were repeating the same
statements in a parrot-like manner. Be that as it may,
even assuming that the above statements are true, the
charges against the appellant are not made out.
8. Asking the driving to go fast is one thing as against
3
being responsible for an accident which happened due to
your own rash and negligent driving. The appellant did
not ask A-1 to drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner.
9. Therefore, looking at it from any perspective, we find
that the rigour of Section 109 of the IPC is not
attracted and therefore, the charges against the
appellant are not maintainable and continuing the present
proceedings against the appellant would certainly amount
to a travesty of justice.
10. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to quash the
criminal proceedings arising from FIR No.342/2024 as
against the appellant alone.
11. The impugned order stands set aside and the appeal is
allowed, accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………………………J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI;
19th FEBRUARY, 2026
4
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12521/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2025
in MCRC No. 33887/2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Gwalior]
ABHAS SANDILYA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 256423/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 19-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Romy Chako, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ashwin Romy, Adv.
Mr. V. Shanmuga Sundar, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh Sham Sonawane, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. V. Vemula Raghuraman, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajan Chourasia Ga, Adv.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR
Mrs. Pratima Singh, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Garg, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
